"AA" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <
[email protected]>,
> "Buck" <j u n k m a i l @ g a l a x y c o r p . c o m> wrote:
>
> > The sacrifices you have made are the same ones many racers make - an expensive bike that is not
> > really useable for anything but racing or training for racing.
>
> Ride, train and race is all I am interested in doing with biking at this point in life so I see
> my time and effort spent as enjoyment and NOT a sacrifice. This is how I prefer to spend my
> free time.
The sacrifices of which I speak are not in time or quality of life, they are the ones that make the
bike a specialist's bike, not a generalist's bike. You know, carrying a load, ability to deal with
urban obstacles, etc. It's like the purchase of an auto - if you have a couple of kids to haul
around, you aren't going to buy a Porsche 911. In my eyes, you are riding around on the cycling
equivalent of a Porsche. Nothing wrong with that!
> You keep telling me my bike is not really useable and this is one of the resons I doubt I will
> continue discussing bents with you Buck. That is a VERY ignorant comment on your behalf after I
> have tried to be factual and honest with you Buck. I ride about 10,000 mi. per year on my bike and
> that is VERY rideable. On all types of roads and grades.
I don't know why you have become so sensitive. Your bike is a purpose-built machine. Again, there
is nothing wrong with that. I wouldn't get my hackles up if people told me that my road bike was
not as versatile as a mountain bike. They're right! I can't take it off-road comfortably. I can't
mount a set of racks on it. I can't mount a set of large tires on it to make it more comfortable.
It is a purpose-built machine. It was made to go fast over smooth roads, much like your carbon
fiber recumbent. It is, however, an entry-level bike. I guess it would be the equivalent of a
Mustang or Camaro - it doesn't have the carbon fiber frame or high-end components found on the
top-end racing bikes. And guess what? There is nothing wrong with that! I ride it for fast weekend
rides, for exercise when the family stays at home, and on supported weekend tours. My most
versatile bike is a mountain bike that has a rack for hauling stuff, a hitch for the trailer,
fenders for staying dry, two sets of wheels for road or dirt, a beat-up paint job for
undesirability, and an easy way to lock it up.
There is no difference in the rideability of any of these bikes, mine or yours. However, there is a
huge difference in versatility between all of them. That is part of what we are discussing around
here. So don't get all upset about it. I think you have an interesting viewpoint to contribute. You
have told us that you are interested in speed, so focus on that aspect of it and let's move forward
with the conversation.
> You have your opinion that recumbents are not useable for anythig other than racing which is a
> biased opinion and rediculous with NO facts to back your POV up BUCK.
I have not said that, so don't make assumptions. Recumbents have some obvious advantages
(aerodynamics, comfort) but I haven't seen that they are as versatile. I would like to have one for
going fast. I'd like to get one for my wife and for my father-in-law because both prefer the seating
position. It would be nice to see them getting some exercise. I won't be getting one for commuting
unless I happen to move to an area where I won't have so many obstacles to cross.
> Getting this back on track, I asked a few questions about rider position and angles. Want to take
> a stab at those?
>
> I have no time to get measured at a performance lab or to do tests in a wind tunnel or ride
> different bikes for comparison. I know what works well for my intended goal and am not interested
> in comparing angles to other platforms. There is only is much time in a given day.
I would think that this is part of what helps you go fast. I'm not suggesting you go down to the a
performance lab and run a bunch of tests. This is a question about the theories behind recumbent
design. Which is more important to unfaired recumbents, maximum power from the rider or
aerodynamics? If it were maximum power, then perhaps the position needs to be readjusted so the
rider angle is closer to 90°. Are the aerodynamics that much better in the prone position as we see
on some of the extreme lowracers? If power goes down as the rider angle approaches 180°, then what
do you think might be the best compromise between the rider angle and aerodynamics? Finally, do you
believe that the body position relative to earth has anything to do with it?
I would think these are questions you would be asking yourself in your quest to go faster. I'm
interested in your point of view as a person who is seeking the ultimate in performance.
-Buck